ML20024E840

Five Factors Re Admissibility of Eddleman Contentions on Site Emergency Plan & Detailed Control Room Design Review

ML20024E840
Person / Time
Site:	Harris
Issue date:	08/31/1983
From:	Eddleman W EDDLEMAN, W.
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20024E830	List: ML20024E829 ML20024E832 ML20024E834 ML20024E840 ML20024E846 ML20024E850 ML20024E853 ML20024E856 ML20024E858 ML20024E862
References
82-468-01-OL, 82-468-1-OL, ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8309070127
Download: ML20024E840 (4)

Text

• r, .

(

00CKETED 2

USNEC August 31, 1983 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA j3 Sco -6 A11:07 NUCIEAR BEGULATOBY COMMISSION . . ,

(;(q$sISEh5h gaASCH BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Glenn O. Bright Dr. James H. Carpenter James L. Kelley, Chairman l

In the Matter of Dockets 50 400 OL CAROLINA POWER AND LIGHT CO. et al. ) 50 401 OL (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, )

Units 1 and 2) ) ASLBP No. 82-MB-01 OL

)

Site 5 factors re Eddleman Contentions on EMERGEUCY PI4N and Detailed Control Roon Design Review (DCRDR) i Under the Board's 7-15-83 Order (at 3) I now address the 5 factors of 10 CFR 2.714(a)(1) per CLI-83-19. Generic responses are provided for the control roon (DCRDR) and site emergency plan (SEP) contentions, since all of then are the sane with respect to their dependency on the documents filed (CP&L site Eme*gency Plan for Harris, and DCRDR information filed 1 June 1983, resuectively), being unable to be specified (if' nade at all) before those 2 documents were available, and being filed with requisite pronptness once the reseective docunents were available. The 5 factors are also sinilar for each set.

,8g They are similar tc those filed 7-29 re the DES (see Bd. 3-18-83 at h-5)<

nga. THE FIVE FACTORS

$8 en 1. Good cause for failure to file on tine: For the site o

S:c energency plan, such is established in the Board's 9-22-82 Order at 8 oO (def erring contentions until availability of docunents, then giving g

kg 30 days to withdraw, amend or nake new contentions based on new ma.o information in the docunents), as modified by the Board's 5-27-83 contentions were filed Order at 24 My site energency plan (SEP)

having within 30 days of the site plan in my hands, allowing for weekends. The Board 5-27 extended the time for such filings th q 2. % 5LP [beh to 6-2h-83 so such filing is surely timely before tF(len. (5-27 Order, p214)

Those DCRDR contentions filed January 1983 also were filed within 30 days of my having the relevant documents (DC"DR document from CP&L and ND7EG-0737, Rev.1) in my hands, under the Board's 9-22-82 See also 2 - 214 - 8 3 conference transcript at 510, lines 10-19.

Order at 8.AThose filed July 2, 1983, are in conformity with the Board's 5-27-83 Order at 25 (30 days fron receipt on June 2 of the document), and just for being sure I got an extension of time to that date OKd by Applicants, Staff, and Judges Bright and Carpenter orally, Judge Kelley being out of the country at that time.

q, Availability of other means whereby my interest will be protected:

For theDCRDR there are no other means. Dr. Wilson is not pursizing his forner contentions in this area. The Staff has nade no response to my contentions, so I infer they agree with Applicants. There is no way to assure that any Staff review"will protect" ny interests.

If the Staff agrees with Applicants that these contentions shouldn't i

be admitted, they are not protecting my interests.

For the site emergency plan /SEP), Staff review still not done is the only other means to protect any of the public interest.

I cannot be assured that any such review "till protect" nv interest.

NRC Staff has certainly failed tib protect my interests in other ways, and its record of coverups re quality assurance failures (e.g. at l Zimner) and failure to catch serious design flaws (e.g. at Diablo

_ Canyon) and approval of emergency plans even FEMA says are unworkable j

.h} (e.g. at Indian Point) leaves me nuch in doubt that they can be j, depended on here. The rule says "will protect" not nay nrotect.

N h d (NOTE re SPDS -- see 7-29 certificate of negotiations: Applicantsk stili have not conulied with nuRaa-0737 Rev i since they don't show how $

Ples; h 11 the SPDS will be integrated into the DRC7DH. They admit they she got the SPDS yet, so they can 't show that. Ref Eddlenan 132F

~

3 The extent to which petitioner's participating may reasonably be expected toassist in developing a sound record.

For both the SEP and DRCRD, if there is no contention, there is no record. Without a record, there cannot be a sound record. ^ Safe control roon design is a vital issue in protecting public health and safety, as the TMI-2 accident shows. Good site energency planning is necessary to allow the possibility of retaining control of the Harris nuclear plant during an accident. These issues are clearly very important to this proceeding, where the main issue is"shon1d the Harris plant operate?"

In addition, I am faniliar with human factors analysis and the design and operation of complex conputer systens; I an faniliar with planning for complex situations (e.g. an energency at a power plant)c I can conduct technical cross-exanination, conduct discovery, and perhaps obtain expert witnesses. My ability in these last areas is established by ny filings already in this proceeding. An advensary hearing is inportant to determining the facts in this case n"operly.

On these issues (DDRDR and SEP), there will be no adversary prodeeding I if no contentions of nine are admitted, since I'm the only intervenor still pursuing contentions in these areas.

Factor 4 The extent to which petitioner's interest will be "epresented by existing parties. As noted above re factors 2 and 3, no other parties represent ny 'nterests in DCRDR or SEP. Apnlicants f ocoose them. Staff opnoses then or remains silent.

I Factor 5 Theextehftowhichtheeetitioner'sparticipation will broaden the issues or delay the proceeding.

Since the DCRDR contentions are safety natters, and the SEP contentions concern energency planning, they cannot delay the proceeding if admitted now. Discovery on safety doesn't onen until i

January 1984, cnd tha cm;rgnney plcnning discovary will not opsn until eftcr tha c2fsty cnd manag;m;nt ecpability hcarings era cvsr.

As to broadenin8 the issues, no DCRDR issues will since the control room design (per Eddleman 132, etc) has been at issue since the beginning of the proceeding. So has energency planning, in many contentions, e.6. Eddleman 56 and 57).

In sun, all 5 factors weigh in favor of adnitting all these contentions: The Board's Orders and unavailability of docunents are good cause for filing late; the matters have been at issue throughout the proceeding and will not delay it; no other parties will represent ny interest in these nattens and there are no other means whereby my interest in then will be represented; ny pardcipa-tion will assure a record and assist in developing a sound record.

ALAB-687 factors: All the DC9DR contentions and SEP contentions are wholly dependent on the DCRDR and NUPEG-0737 Rev.1, or on the SEP.

Contentions 142-14k inclusive depend on NUoEG-0737 Rev i and cite it.

Thus the first factor is in favor of all contentions.

Without clairvoyance, I could not have advanced these contentions with specificity to the docunents (which are their basis: lack of SEP compliance with HUREG-0737 sections, or failure of a document at such a part to comply with applicable rules of NUREG-0737 on DCRDR).

Thus the second ALAB-687 factor favors the contentions. See CLI 83-19 at 12-13, for corroboration.

Requisite promptness in tendering the contentions once the documents exist is established above re Factor 1, timeliness. I have conplied with the Board's Orders in this respect, and filed within 30 days of having the docunents in my hands. (See 9-22-82 at 8) .

Thus all factors favor admission of the DC"DR and SEP contentions.

NOTES: Eddlenan 152 is withdrawn; 155 is not; 5 factors re Eddleman 161 we*e addresse '

6C4IOW -lho f P 283 sv o-l e subnit ri and S P P CStaff cencu=s thev a*e adenuate pitw.se",

resnectfully t$at the ab'ove shows CLI-83-19 is fully complied with for my DORDR, SEP and 161 contentions.

- -